machete

fernando · 20th December 2022, 11:09 AM

If the last name is actually spelled MONTEIRO is Portuguese; thus a Brazilian item.

Interested Party · 20th December 2022, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fernando

If the last name is actually spelled MONTEIRO is Portuguese; thus a Brazilian item.

Of Brazilian use or manufacture? Would you place the age between 1940-1960 or after? I would imagine the sheath is not original. It is quite well built, being water molded, tooled and the frog is attached with little rivets that look like bits of nails.

fernando · 20th December 2022, 03:17 PM

I was only focusing on the name; no knowledge to further judging

.

Martin Lubojacky · 21st December 2022, 02:34 PM

Thank you all for your interesting comments.
I'm of the opinion that the name is a bit longer - I see it as Monterroza (acc to
https://forebears.io/surnames/monterroza - it is found mainly in Colombia).
The frog is attached to the sheath with many miniature nails, yet it holds firmly. The typeface seems older to me (I would guess that's how my grandfather wrote), so I think from the way the scabbard might be circa 1950s (?).

BBJW · 11th January 2023, 08:18 PM

Agreed that it is Central American (South Texas/Arizona) most likely El Salvador.--bbjw

David · 11th January 2023, 09:18 PM

Yes, but is this ethnographic in nature? Isn't this a mass produced item?

Edster · 11th January 2023, 09:54 PM

David,

Good point. On the surface I would agree. BUT many if not most weapons were initially produced in an industrialized environment, even the Kassala sword market, and used within a cultural context. Many utility knives became weapons when needed. In this case the US Army's M1942 machete was made in several places during WW2 including Australia and used as necessary. And afterward adapted as a commercial tool including in Central/South America even until today.

Martin's machete is a survival of its origin and used within the ethnic culture of its owners. We may even Wokely call it a "cultural appropriation", but I think it's still ethnographically valid.

Regards,
Ed

20th December 2022, 11:09 AM	#1
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	If the last name is actually spelled MONTEIRO is Portuguese; thus a Brazilian item.

20th December 2022, 03:17 PM	#3
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	I was only focusing on the name; no knowledge to further judging .

21st December 2022, 02:34 PM	#4
Martin Lubojacky Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Czech Republic Posts: 843	Thank you all for your interesting comments. I'm of the opinion that the name is a bit longer - I see it as Monterroza (acc to https://forebears.io/surnames/monterroza - it is found mainly in Colombia). The frog is attached to the sheath with many miniature nails, yet it holds firmly. The typeface seems older to me (I would guess that's how my grandfather wrote), so I think from the way the scabbard might be circa 1950s (?).

11th January 2023, 08:18 PM	#5
BBJW Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Idaho, USA Posts: 228	Agreed that it is Central American (South Texas/Arizona) most likely El Salvador.--bbjw

11th January 2023, 09:18 PM	#6
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,218	Yes, but is this ethnographic in nature? Isn't this a mass produced item?

11th January 2023, 09:54 PM	#7
Edster Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 413	David, Good point. On the surface I would agree. BUT many if not most weapons were initially produced in an industrialized environment, even the Kassala sword market, and used within a cultural context. Many utility knives became weapons when needed. In this case the US Army's M1942 machete was made in several places during WW2 including Australia and used as necessary. And afterward adapted as a commercial tool including in Central/South America even until today. Martin's machete is a survival of its origin and used within the ethnic culture of its owners. We may even Wokely call it a "cultural appropriation", but I think it's still ethnographically valid. Regards, Ed